Hawks that oppose the death penalty

[Goldwater]

Okay, I understand why people who generally have pacifistic views oppose the death penalty, but I've noticed that there are some people who oppose the death penalty despite generally having hawkish views on foreign policy, which I have a harder time understanding. So, I have question everybody here that has a hawkish foreign policy and opposes the death penalty. Why? If you have no moral objections to killing enemy soldiers or foreign dictators, why do you have one against killing mass murders or domestic terrorists? Or does your opposition have to do with reasons other than morality? I'm not trying to attack anybody's political views, I'm just genuinely curious.

[TJ in Oregon]

Not really a hawk,

but, there is a huge difference between killing enemy soldiers on a battlefield and putting to death someone who has already been arrested, taken into custody, and put on trial: those in prison do not pose even close to the same threat as those still at large. An enemy soldier is still trying to kill people, someone in prison is largely unable to do so anymore. The threat of violence against others is the moral justification for killing someone. Whether or not it can be moral to kill somebody is based not only upon whether they wish to harm another person or not, but also their ability to do so.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Interesting question. I suppose it's the separation my brain makes between foreign and domestic policy. While foreign policy has much more to so with American power and "the greater good", domestic policy is more of a recognition of individual rights and so on. That said, I do support the death penalty in certain cases, and treason is a very high crime to me. I can answer more fully later.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Okay, I understand why people who generally have pacifistic views oppose the death penalty, but I've noticed that there are some people who oppose the death penalty despite generally having hawkish views on foreign policy, which I have a harder time understanding. So, I have question everybody here that has a hawkish foreign policy and opposes the death penalty. Why? If you have no moral objections to killing enemy soldiers or foreign dictators, why do you have one against killing mass murders or domestic terrorists? Or does your opposition have to do with reasons other than morality? I'm not trying to attack anybody's political views, I'm just genuinely curious.

Killing people in order to prevent the killing of more people is very different from killing people for revenge's sake.

[politicus]

Killing people in order to prevent the killing of more people is very different from killing people for revenge's sake.

This basically.

War is an abnormal situation that allows special measures. The state killing its own citizens in peace time, after they have already been taken into custody and theefore poses no threat, is morally unacceptable to me.

[PJ]

Okay, I understand why people who generally have pacifistic views oppose the death penalty, but I've noticed that there are some people who oppose the death penalty despite generally having hawkish views on foreign policy, which I have a harder time understanding. So, I have question everybody here that has a hawkish foreign policy and opposes the death penalty. Why? If you have no moral objections to killing enemy soldiers or foreign dictators, why do you have one against killing mass murders or domestic terrorists? Or does your opposition have to do with reasons other than morality? I'm not trying to attack anybody's political views, I'm just genuinely curious.

Killing people in order to prevent the killing of more people is very different from killing people for revenge's sake.